Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Yeah my bad with the 4 mln. erk1 allready explained it correctly:)
LOL. I am sorry but I really didn't expect this. So, your link to Chernobyl was the answer to my question!? This is just too funny. Let's try this once more. I asked for scientific evidence about this claim:
but there is another thing no-one ever talks about. the incidence of cancer, leukemia and other diseases in the areas around nuclear plants, for hundreds of kms, that's unbelieveably high despite their "absolute safeness" and still no corporate manager ever comes out explaining why.
and your answer is that I should read a research about Chernobyl's effects.
Are you seriously not getting how stupid your answer is or are you simply not reading posts which you are giving answers to?
What is next? If I ask an explanation about a claim that "more people than we actually know get frozen to death and drown while travelling with ships", you will enlighten me with a wiki link to Titanic? :D
(edited)
but there is another thing no-one ever talks about. the incidence of cancer, leukemia and other diseases in the areas around nuclear plants, for hundreds of kms, that's unbelieveably high despite their "absolute safeness" and still no corporate manager ever comes out explaining why.
and your answer is that I should read a research about Chernobyl's effects.
Are you seriously not getting how stupid your answer is or are you simply not reading posts which you are giving answers to?
What is next? If I ask an explanation about a claim that "more people than we actually know get frozen to death and drown while travelling with ships", you will enlighten me with a wiki link to Titanic? :D
(edited)
He's more than expert enough for the layman's explanation. And I was not calmed down. This is stil a frightening situation but now I know exactly how.
If you found some flaws, I would appreciate your educated opinion. At least for the largest flaw you spotted.
The article is not trying to rate the problem on some scale of severity. It is trying to explain the key information which is impossible to dig out amongst all the "experts" voicing their "educated" (read: exaggerated) opinions.
If you found some flaws, I would appreciate your educated opinion. At least for the largest flaw you spotted.
The article is not trying to rate the problem on some scale of severity. It is trying to explain the key information which is impossible to dig out amongst all the "experts" voicing their "educated" (read: exaggerated) opinions.
I asked myself what his expertise is based on. It's definately not his status as an MIT scientist because he is actually an economist "whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry".
Well, I can say that the same is true for me. Both my parents worked on the construction of a German nuclear power plant. Does that make me an expert as well?
Some major flaws were pointed out directly in the comments of this article:
1. The residual heat is not 3% but 7%
2. The reactor does NOT have a core catcher. While core catchers are the latest and greatest in reactor safety AFAIK as of today there is _NO_ operational reactor in the western world (Russia may have some) that does have a core catcher.
3. In case of a core meltdown, regular moderation is NOT guaranteed because the melting behavior of fuel and moderation rods is undefined.
4. In case of a core meltdown, the boron water doesn’t help because it won’t reach the molten core.
5. Injecting sea water does increase the chances of hydrogen buildup in the pressure vessle because sea water is more susceptible to splitup
Some more points followed. The article was edited later on to correct some of these. Major points are 2 and 4 imo.
However, the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT used it as a starting point for their website on this topic. This information should be more sophisticated.
(edited)
Well, I can say that the same is true for me. Both my parents worked on the construction of a German nuclear power plant. Does that make me an expert as well?
Some major flaws were pointed out directly in the comments of this article:
1. The residual heat is not 3% but 7%
2. The reactor does NOT have a core catcher. While core catchers are the latest and greatest in reactor safety AFAIK as of today there is _NO_ operational reactor in the western world (Russia may have some) that does have a core catcher.
3. In case of a core meltdown, regular moderation is NOT guaranteed because the melting behavior of fuel and moderation rods is undefined.
4. In case of a core meltdown, the boron water doesn’t help because it won’t reach the molten core.
5. Injecting sea water does increase the chances of hydrogen buildup in the pressure vessle because sea water is more susceptible to splitup
Some more points followed. The article was edited later on to correct some of these. Major points are 2 and 4 imo.
However, the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT used it as a starting point for their website on this topic. This information should be more sophisticated.
(edited)
:) Thanx for the homework. This seems more like it.
(edited)
(edited)
Thanx. This makes sense. More homework for me :). This is really not a simple topic...
I think it is as difficult as you make it. As I already wrote, looking at the waste of nulear powerstations should be enough to make people think 'what the hell are they doing?'.
This is also very interesting to read :) I have seen this on tv if I'm correct, but I can't find any video. This is the article damninteresting.com - This Place is Not a Place of Honor. Maybe I will try to find it tomorrow as I also would like to see it again. This is the only video I could find, here.
I think it's quite difficult to know what those 4 million people are 20% of, as I was sure Germany has much more citizens than 20 million.
Are you seriously not getting how stupid your answer is
how to sell weak ideas for strong, by insulting
why don't you tell us about the nuclear waste, and the problem of storing high level waste, never solved so far? It'is our gift to our children, and children's children, isn't it?
how to sell weak ideas for strong, by insulting
why don't you tell us about the nuclear waste, and the problem of storing high level waste, never solved so far? It'is our gift to our children, and children's children, isn't it?
there was no or very small nuclear threat...just media has business :-)ň
read this
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
read this
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
My sentence that you quoted is as insulting as nuclear power is evil. I called his answer stupid and not him personally. For me it's also very stupid that I have to explain this difference to you. Again, that doesn't mean that you're very stupid. It just means that you don't know what an insult is.
You haven't even noticed that Charles was smart enough to basically agree and answer that he didn't really read my question well. Clever people know that they think and say a lot of stupid things too. Being smart doesn't mean that you never make a wrong assumption or say something stupid.
"I know that I know nothing." - Socrates
I don't tell you about nuclear waste because I am not an expert. I am just repeating what I do know which is that nuclear power is only one option of energy production and each option should be evaluated and compared in a multidisciplinarily scientific way. Some of the people are able to do that but most of the people are usually so conditioned to taking sides that a well balanced analysis looks to them like hatred.
It's just too easy to be only against a certain option because all you have to do is find major downsides which every option has. It is much more demanding to choose one of the options and than defend it. And it is even more demanding to take responsibility and put your ideal option from theory to practice. Then you really see whether you chose best. There is no healthy way to produce energy in the amounts we need at the moment. That's for sure.
(edited)
You haven't even noticed that Charles was smart enough to basically agree and answer that he didn't really read my question well. Clever people know that they think and say a lot of stupid things too. Being smart doesn't mean that you never make a wrong assumption or say something stupid.
"I know that I know nothing." - Socrates
I don't tell you about nuclear waste because I am not an expert. I am just repeating what I do know which is that nuclear power is only one option of energy production and each option should be evaluated and compared in a multidisciplinarily scientific way. Some of the people are able to do that but most of the people are usually so conditioned to taking sides that a well balanced analysis looks to them like hatred.
It's just too easy to be only against a certain option because all you have to do is find major downsides which every option has. It is much more demanding to choose one of the options and than defend it. And it is even more demanding to take responsibility and put your ideal option from theory to practice. Then you really see whether you chose best. There is no healthy way to produce energy in the amounts we need at the moment. That's for sure.
(edited)
You use a blog of a mechanical engineer as source? Really? ;)
And Japan evacuates and warn everyone in a cirle of 80km around the threat just for fun? :P The gouverment sometimes doesn't even know what is happening and were smoke is comming from. How can you be so sure as they themselfs have no idea how serious the problems are and if all reactors are still intact. More and more countries are evacuating their people and France (and they know nuclear) was the first 1 as they didn't believe anything of being in somekind of controle from the beginning.
You just make up things right now.
(edited)
And Japan evacuates and warn everyone in a cirle of 80km around the threat just for fun? :P The gouverment sometimes doesn't even know what is happening and were smoke is comming from. How can you be so sure as they themselfs have no idea how serious the problems are and if all reactors are still intact. More and more countries are evacuating their people and France (and they know nuclear) was the first 1 as they didn't believe anything of being in somekind of controle from the beginning.
You just make up things right now.
(edited)
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
maybe you need a little update, don't you?
maybe you need a little update, don't you?
ok, no more worries for the stupid thing.
I think that nuclear power (nuclear fission plants) is a bad option, but it is worse in some countries than in other. Safety is not the main problem as the political and the economic concerns are more important, for instance in my country. Our government chose to spend the most of the resources for new nuclear plants, so we'll eventually see just a long-term result, but actually at a very high cost; while the same money, or part of it, could be invested in both renewable sources research and plants. So Italy has less reason for the nuclear option than other countries.
Apart from this, you don't need to be e nuclear engineer to realize how crucial is the nuclear waste problem. In terms of cost, non only safety. Technology didn't find a solution for the disposal of the waste so far. Its cost is simply procrastined to the next generation, but it still exists.
Moreover we must face the problem from a safety and health point of view, from an environmental point of view, but i don't expect that nuclear fans ever worry about it.
At least until someone unfortunately happens to live in a radiation area, and in that case it will be the worst thing in his life, and i call this very very stupid.
I think that nuclear power (nuclear fission plants) is a bad option, but it is worse in some countries than in other. Safety is not the main problem as the political and the economic concerns are more important, for instance in my country. Our government chose to spend the most of the resources for new nuclear plants, so we'll eventually see just a long-term result, but actually at a very high cost; while the same money, or part of it, could be invested in both renewable sources research and plants. So Italy has less reason for the nuclear option than other countries.
Apart from this, you don't need to be e nuclear engineer to realize how crucial is the nuclear waste problem. In terms of cost, non only safety. Technology didn't find a solution for the disposal of the waste so far. Its cost is simply procrastined to the next generation, but it still exists.
Moreover we must face the problem from a safety and health point of view, from an environmental point of view, but i don't expect that nuclear fans ever worry about it.
At least until someone unfortunately happens to live in a radiation area, and in that case it will be the worst thing in his life, and i call this very very stupid.